This website uses cookies for functionality and allow us to analyse the use of the site. To opt out please view our cookie policy. If you continue to browse the site, we'll assume you agree to the use of cookies.

Successful Claim For Student With Upper Limb Disorder

Irwin Mitchell were instructed by Alexandra in June 2007. Alexandra had been a student working in a summer job at the Defendants company in 2005 when she developed a work related upper limb disorder.

Alexandra had worked at the Defendant company for the previous 2 summers without incident. However, in June 2007 she was placed on a pie filling line when her wrist became inflamed after a period of one day of carrying out this work. She was diagnosed with tendonitis and signed off work for 2 weeks and never returned to the Defendant company.

There were issues in relation to limitation from the outset as the injury had been sustained over 2 years prior to contacting us. There was an urgent need to obtain medical evidence to support the claim but also to do so in time before limitation expired.

Investigations were carried out by us on behalf of Alexandra and a medical expert was instructed. It was decided that proceedings had to be issued to protect Alexandra’s claim from limitation and a full letter of claim was also sent to the Defendants.

Full proceedings were eventually served on the Defendants in late December 2008 and a Defence was filed by the Defendants strongly denying liability and the claim proceeded towards trial.

Despite the fact that it was known by all parties that the claim was of modest value an extensive amount of work had to be done in relation to reviewing documentary evidence and preparation of witness evidence.

At one point it was felt that the relevant duration of the time that Alexandra had been carrying out the task was not sufficient to cause the injury and a conference was arranged with a barrister and an expert to advise accordingly.

The claim was continuing to proceed to trial in respect of liability and quantum and discussions were being held in relation to whether an expert ergonomist would have to be instructed.

Negotiations commenced between the parties to push the claim towards settlement and eventually following discussions the claim settled in Alexandra’s favour for a considerable sum of damages.